Does one cause the other?

[Frosty]

For example: are people more likely to be INTPs because they lack inherint social skills. They see others developing relationships with others, and because they theselves are socially behind their peers the regress further into their head. Or ESTPs do they start out life with a proclination towards being social and continue to bounce off of that further developing that and those functions and placeing less emphasis on those other parts of their character that could possibly be developed to overtake their more extroverted traits?

I guess what I am asking is Nature or Nurture. And do you foster and subconciously choose how you develop, or is it already predetemind?

 

[tkae.]

As far as I know, it's both. There are genetic factors that predispose your early personality towards certain inclinations -- if your neurotransmitters make you more anxious, you might lean towards being introverted, if your amygdala is well-developed, you could be a feeler vs a thinker with a well-developed prefrontal cortex, etc -- but neither of them define your personality by themselves. Your life experiences will impact the way you develop, and your brain will grow depending on your experiences and how you use it. That last part is very reductionist and kind of sloppy, but it gets the point across.

I would say E/I and T/F are probably more neurological, while S/N and J/P are more environmental. But I don't think there's any kind of conclusive agreement on that. All I know is that most things in developmental psychology tend to be a combination of nature and nurture rather than one or the other, so personality development is probably one of those things too.

 

[INTP]

As far as I know, it's both. There are genetic factors that predispose your early personality towards certain inclinations -- if your neurotransmitters make you more anxious, you might lean towards being introverted, if your amygdala is well-developed, you could be a feeler vs a thinker with a well-developed prefrontal cortex, etc -- but neither of them define your personality by themselves. Your life experiences will impact the way you develop, and your brain will grow depending on your experiences and how you use it. That last part is very reductionist and kind of sloppy, but it gets the point across.

I would say E/I and T/F are probably more neurological, while S/N and J/P are more environmental. But I don't think there's any kind of conclusive agreement on that. All I know is that most things in developmental psychology tend to be a combination of nature and nurture rather than one or the other, so personality development is probably one of those things too.

I agree that its both. But being easily anxious is not a sign of introversion, in big 5 it would be about neuroticism, which isnt correlated to MBTI. Well developed amygdala doesent make one F, i dont think F makes one fluent in regulating emotions, processing memory and decision making. Also frontal cortex is not just logic, but also has a part that manages personal values and this area effects other parts, which is what F's prefer. So frontal cortex is not just for T's.

Some stuff that sets I/E apart neurologically is that I brains gets activated easier and have more idle activation, which can easily cause overstimulation. E brains on the other hand feel understimulated if there isnt some activation from external world, which doesent feel nice. Other thing is that E's have more info going towards visual cortex from other parts of the cortex(im not talking about info coming from eyes, but regions above visual cortex), while I's have more leaving the visual cortex. This might sound backwards, but extraverts "project" more expectations etc to their visual sensation, while for I's there is less projection towards the visual cortex.

And yes, it has been accepted as a fact by academia ages ago that nothing in human psyche is neither nature or nurture, but nature via nurture.

 

[tkae.]

I agree that its both. But being easily anxious is not a sign of introversion, in big 5 it would be about neuroticism, which isnt correlated to MBTI. Well developed amygdala doesent make one F, i dont think F makes one fluent in regulating emotions, processing memory and decision making. Also frontal cortex is not just logic, but also has a part that manages personal values and this area effects other parts, which is what F's prefer. So frontal cortex is not just for T's.

Some stuff that sets I/E apart neurologically is that I brains gets activated easier and have more idle activation, which can easily cause overstimulation. E brains on the other hand feel understimulated if there isnt some activation from external world, which doesent feel nice. Other thing is that E's have more info going towards visual cortex from other parts of the cortex(im not talking about info coming from eyes, but regions above visual cortex), while I's have more leaving the visual cortex. This might sound backwards, but extraverts "project" more expectations etc to their visual sensation, while for I's there is less projection towards the visual cortex.

And yes, it has been accepted as a fact by academia ages ago that nothing in human psyche is neither nature or nurture, but nature via nurture.

I said it was possible for them to lead you down the path to being those things, I didn't say they defined what you would be:

As far as I know, it's both. There are genetic factors that predispose your early personality towards certain inclinations -- if your neurotransmitters make you more anxious, you might lean towards being introverted, if your amygdala is well-developed, you could be a feeler vs a thinker with a well-developed prefrontal cortex, etc -- but neither of them define your personality by themselves. Your life experiences will impact the way you develop, and your brain will grow depending on your experiences and how you use it. That last part is very reductionist and kind of sloppy, but it gets the point across.

I would say E/I and T/F are probably more neurological, while S/N and J/P are more environmental. But I don't think there's any kind of conclusive agreement on that. All I know is that most things in developmental psychology tend to be a combination of nature and nurture rather than one or the other, so personality development is probably one of those things too.